Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Keenor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Fred Keenor

[edit]

5x expanded by Kosack (talk). Self-nominated at 14:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC).

  • Article was at 5,111 characters prior to expansion, meaning a full 5x would require 25,555 characters. At the present revision, it is 20,391, which is 3.9x. It's a solid expansion that is to your credit, but so far it falls short of the fivefold expansion required. You do still have time in the expansion window to continue it, if you can. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Apologies for that, I seem to have miscalculated the prose expansion somehow. I'll try to expand it a bit more to meet the requirements in time. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: I think it's up to the required amount now. Thanks for that. Kosack (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It looks to be, yes. Can you fix that {{cn}} tag? I'll give it a closer review later today. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: Hi, are you able to finish the review? Kosack (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can. Thanks for the reminder. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Article has 26,117 characters, meeting the five-fold expansion requirement. Many sources are offline, so AGF on their content and not being plagiarized. An online source supports the main proposed hook. The section on the participation in the Battle of the Somme is missing an inline citation, and that's all that's holding me up from fully approving this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: The ref for the quote underneath also covered the part that was cited as needing a ref. I've split the ref to cover both now. Kosack (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I figured that it did, but we still needed the inline citation directly after the sentence per DYK rules. All ready to go! Great job with the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)